Late commenting here, but this is all excellent reasoning, agree with all of it.
I believe there WAS a selection method for pro-natal norms for nearly all of human existence, but it was mostly social/cultural, not genetic. See Robin Hanson's idea of cultural drift. Anti-natal tendencies were extinguished at the level of tribes, clans, villages, etc. Not individuals (for the reasons you describe here), but also not entire empires or kingdoms, because anti-natal ideas couldn't spread that far before they consumed their host.
In the past, as soon as some group or other started to drift too far in the direction of anti-natal norms -- even just a trend towards too-late marriages or getting too picky over spouses or something -- that group would be swiftly annihilated through some combination of natural causes and the encroachment of other groups unless it corrected course almost immediately. Keeping in mind that replacement TFR under pre-20th century death rates might be ~4, so a trend towards even ~2.0 TFRs back then meant your supply of prime-age men would utterly collapse in a matter of a few decades.
Long lives and low death rates have allowed anti-natal norms to take root more deeply and to diverge further from pro-natal traditions than was ever possible in the past, while mass communication technologies have allowed these norms to be advertised and glamorized around the world, converting pro-natal cultures to the more glamorous norms faster than they can replace and extinguish the anti-natal cultures.
So this old selection method is probably gone forever. Or if it returns, it will look very different and operate on a far larger scale than in the past.
I was surprised to see that fertility rates in France are picking up. How much of that increase is among the indigenous French population and how much is attributable to ehtnic communities in France? Immigrant communities account for around 20% of the French population so the higher birth rate in those communities may only have a fractional effect on the fertility rate, but if that higher birth rate continues it will (surely) have a multiplier effect and will eventually impact on the fertility rate
Their TFR trends aren't really that different from other developed countries, but they stay at a higher level (including amongst those of white ethnicity)/have a slightly lower rate of decline and slightly higher upticks in good periods
Solid argument. I still think that genetic factors will play a role in the future of human fertility, but they are not deterministic, nor are they as influential as social factors (especially pro-fertility religiousness). I still think that government programs to increase fertility are bad because of pollution and violence, but that once those things are less existentially threatening, I would become a natalist. Of course you can never reduce risks to 0, but right now the risks are too high for me to endorse natalism.
Late commenting here, but this is all excellent reasoning, agree with all of it.
I believe there WAS a selection method for pro-natal norms for nearly all of human existence, but it was mostly social/cultural, not genetic. See Robin Hanson's idea of cultural drift. Anti-natal tendencies were extinguished at the level of tribes, clans, villages, etc. Not individuals (for the reasons you describe here), but also not entire empires or kingdoms, because anti-natal ideas couldn't spread that far before they consumed their host.
In the past, as soon as some group or other started to drift too far in the direction of anti-natal norms -- even just a trend towards too-late marriages or getting too picky over spouses or something -- that group would be swiftly annihilated through some combination of natural causes and the encroachment of other groups unless it corrected course almost immediately. Keeping in mind that replacement TFR under pre-20th century death rates might be ~4, so a trend towards even ~2.0 TFRs back then meant your supply of prime-age men would utterly collapse in a matter of a few decades.
Long lives and low death rates have allowed anti-natal norms to take root more deeply and to diverge further from pro-natal traditions than was ever possible in the past, while mass communication technologies have allowed these norms to be advertised and glamorized around the world, converting pro-natal cultures to the more glamorous norms faster than they can replace and extinguish the anti-natal cultures.
So this old selection method is probably gone forever. Or if it returns, it will look very different and operate on a far larger scale than in the past.
probably not gone! I do believe something will out! just a question of how many generations it takes and how diminished our species will be...
I was surprised to see that fertility rates in France are picking up. How much of that increase is among the indigenous French population and how much is attributable to ehtnic communities in France? Immigrant communities account for around 20% of the French population so the higher birth rate in those communities may only have a fractional effect on the fertility rate, but if that higher birth rate continues it will (surely) have a multiplier effect and will eventually impact on the fertility rate
Their TFR trends aren't really that different from other developed countries, but they stay at a higher level (including amongst those of white ethnicity)/have a slightly lower rate of decline and slightly higher upticks in good periods
Solid argument. I still think that genetic factors will play a role in the future of human fertility, but they are not deterministic, nor are they as influential as social factors (especially pro-fertility religiousness). I still think that government programs to increase fertility are bad because of pollution and violence, but that once those things are less existentially threatening, I would become a natalist. Of course you can never reduce risks to 0, but right now the risks are too high for me to endorse natalism.
Looking forward to engaging you on pollution and violence (pollution particularly of interest to me)